Realignment Election

Newsweek’s poll has every Democrat winning the presidency in every match-up against every Republican.

It is way, way too early to tell, but we may be seeing the beginnings of a realignment election, in which the sitting party is repuduated and the incoming party has a mandate for change. This phenomenon often follows disastrous presidencies and ushers in a new era — Jackson’s, Lincoln’s, Roosevelt’s, Reagan’s. It’s very possible that Bush, by wrecking the Reagan Revolution, has managed to abbreviate the Republican era inagurated in 1980.

It is also increasingly possible that by November, 2008 this will be incredibly obvious. No one knew Lincoln was bound to win in 1860 or Reagan in 1980, but it was profoundly certain in 1932 that whoever got the Democratic nomination was going to beat Herbert Hoover. It is difficult enough to win an election as a candidate of the party in power, even when the president has done a good job — look at Nixon’s and Gore’s struggles in 1960 and 2000, respectively. They both won, probably — in one case definitely — but close enough to get the election stolen from them. But why, following Eisenhower and Clinton, was it even close?

But could you imagine what it’s going to be like to be a Republican candidate in 2008, trying to straightface the previous eight years? Giuliani has chosen to claim Bush is a “great president.” Of course, he knows better, and you’ll be able to tell just by looking at his face when he explains this comment in his debate with Gore-Obama-Clinton-Edwards-whoever. This may be 1931 and counting.